Traditional Journalism

Watching both videos on the Chevron Texaco Ecuador lawsuit, it became very clear how one issue can be presented in vastly different ways. While I found the 60 minutes clip to be much more credible and less biased than the second, I still don't feel that traditional journalism is represented in either of the videos.
Traditional journalism is defined as remaining neutral at any cost. It should be noted that the 60 minutes video does present both sides of the issue and makes an effort to interview people within the Chevron company, but it is still very clear throughout the video that they have some bias toward Ecuador.
The other video cannot be considered traditional journalism because it isn't even real journalism. As pointed out in the New York Times article, the video was posted on youtube, not a credible website, and it was a reporter hired by the company who investigated for the video. It is more of a PR campaign than a journalistic piece. The video doesn't even pretend to be neutral, it is so completely biased. Only Chevron employed scientists, environmentalists...are interviewed, and not one person from the opposing side actually talks to the reporter. It is the same story skewed in a completely different way.
I am not sure traditional journalism can ever be followed because it is hard to be completely unbiased about any issue, but the 60 minutes video clearly presents both sides of the issue, while the second video fails to do so.